And the winner of the 2024 first (and probably only) presidential debate was… the ABC “moderators”, their real-time “fact-checking” and the muted microphone.
That was the story on Tuesday in Philadelphia as Donald J. Trump constantly struggled
against the interventions and “ganging up” of the media personalities in his battle to expose the falsehood-telling onslaught of Democrat cackling Kamala Harris.
For those anticipating a much more dramatic and detailed analysis of last night’s back-and-forth between three-time Republican nominee and his newly minted minority female diversity, equity and inclusion counterpart, Tuesday night’s “debate” (again, if you can ever call this type of made for TV event that) boiled down to who would be seen as having the best presentation of two-minute answers, one-minute rebuttals and the ability to transition between topics.
Instead, from Harris we got a law school exam-like regurgitation of facts and figures – mostly, if not all lies – garnered from her aides’ compilation of materials. On the whole, she carried herself well, at least in terms of presentation. If this were a test, she would’ve passed! But oh yeah, there was another human there! And he had something to add that was much more valuable.
That is if you could sift out the interference from ABC, whose personnel (ABC News anchor and managing editor David Muir and ABC News Live “Prime” anchor Linsey Davis) actively attempted to become part of the program from the beginning. This was Candy Crowley on steroids. It was so bad that this just might be the last “debate” of its kind, because no Republican in his right mind would volunteer to go through this without being compelled by hot irons in their back.
Except for a few notable exceptions, what the candidates themselves said was actually secondary to the hype of the evening. Some of us had to take notes during the 90-minute event, but it’s safe to say tens of millions of Americans watched just because they wanted to catch an initial glimpse of Harris and how she’d do on such a stage. Trump has been seen so much over the past eight-plus years that everyone could anticipate what he’d bring even if they couldn’t be sure about how he’d say it. There would be plenty of facial expressions – there were – and there’d be lots of shaking his head, a few grimaces, a good amount of bragging and, well, other Trump-isms.
Thankfully, there weren’t that many flashes of anger. And this from the guy who was shot a couple months ago.
We knew, because there weren’t to be any audience members present, that there wouldn’t be any special guests or other dignitaries like Trump had brought to the “show” in the 2016 duels.
But what about cackling Kamala? Up until Tuesday night, Harris could content herself to remain out of sight, which placed all the more pressure on the woman to perform – and do it relatively quickly. American voters don’t have long attention spans. They’d already formed opinions on Trump long ago, and nothing he could do or say would change the vast majority of them.
For Harris, I figure she had about one or two answers before the “first impression” opinions were etched in stone. You either liked her and “got her” spiel, or you didn’t. Simply put, cackling Kamala couldn’t fake this one. She tried to hide her lack of exposure and cloak it in statistics and platitudes. But either you bought it, or you didn’t.
The muted microphone helped Trump contain his worst instincts to go long and wander off message – or overcite statistics or boast on crowd sizes or list his golf handicap or talk about people in his administration that didn’t pan out. When Trump stuck to discussing his policies vs. Harris’s, he couldn’t lose. So voluntarily neutralizing his biggest debate weakness was a large advantage for Trump.
Though Trump was far from perfect. In some respects, he was even poor. By sheer lack of self-control (what else would you label it?), he couldn’t contain himself in his insistence that he “won” the 2020 election, that Haitian illegal aliens were eating pets in Springfield, Ohio (they have indeed destroyed the once-beautiful city, but he didn’t portray the damage very well), and generally accepted it while cackling Kamala constantly mocked him and insulted him with incredulous facial gyrations alone.
The moderators just sat by and joined in. Three-on-one? If this had been a hockey game, Democrats enjoyed a non-stop power-play the entire contest.
As for Harris, she probably would’ve preferred having her mic muted the entire time instead of being forced to drone on about how great and capable Joe Biden was or the fact that she was the first this or first that or that diversity brings so many benefits. Or how awful Trump was. I didn’t count how many times Kamala referred to – and lied about, plain and simple -- her opponent, but it was a healthy tally.
Therefore, the winner? As previously mentioned, the format and the moderators. Trump was free to talk about his policy and visions, but how much of it got through the institutional barriers?
Simply put, Kamala had no answers in terms of content. The pundits had their own reasons for suggesting either candidate helped or hurt his or her chances from last night’s performances. But eyes – and ears – don’t lie. Trump could have done better – much better. But people see what they see.
The Kamala factor
Going into the debate, it’s safe to say there was some disagreement in Trump’s camp about how to handle his new and relatively undefined adversary. After all, Kamala was a female candidate, like Hillary Clinton was, but no one would’ve ever considered Crooked Hillary as anything less than shrewd, nasty and conniving to the core. She was a grandmother, but not the kindly type who knits sweaters and feeds kids breakfast at the kitchen table.
Kamala, on the other hand, was depicted (at least in the media) as “joyful” and happy, her horrific wicked witch-like cackling laugh shown as a personal benefit that made her more “human” and empathetic, something Clinton could never be mistaken for. These are feminine qualities, things Trump didn’t need to be worried about with “tough guy” Joe Biden who was so ornery and cantankerous that no one would ever feel sorry for him, even if he was getting bludgeoned and mocked like he was after June 27th.
Trump must’ve received the “be nice to Kamala” admonishment from his debate advisors, because the former White House occupant was much more restrained on Tuesday night than he normally would’ve been. He still worked diligently to present her record to Americans – and got more than his share of “you’re to blame for the illegal alien invasion” -- but the overtly aggressive Trump from debate number one in 2020 was gone.
Going in, I thought there was only one way Trump could obtain anything less than a “draw” during this forum, and that was if he treated her unfairly and hit below the proverbial pantsuit belt. In other words, Trump could’ve “lost” by conduct alone, because nobody treats a lady like that, especially one who the feminists already are so strongly supporting.
Trump, somewhat uncharacteristically, wasn’t his usual harsh self in Philadelphia. Not to the point of being oversolicitous or too easy going, but the Republican nominee stuck to policies and records – where he was permitted to -- without getting down into the mud, which is clearly what cackling Kamala would’ve preferred. Trump wouldn’t oblige her not-so-veiled attempts to goad him, which deprived Harris of the chance to look forceful and commanding.
And there was no way Harris was going to lie her way into swaying voters that she’d make for a better president. But, at the same time, viewers were likely left with the impression that Trump was petty, defensive, unprepared and put on defensive much of the evening. There were a couple times where Trump ignored the gist of the question in order to assert his own arguments on topics.
Harris didn’t lose her cool. She didn’t have to. The ABC people didn’t press her on anything and the selection of the questions all favored her. January 6 as a topic? Several questions on abortion? No “fact check” on Kamala’s refusal to specify a temporal limitation on the procedure? What about Ralph Northam and his “keep the infant comfortable” statement in Virginia?
What about inflation? What about the federal budget deficit? What about the world leaders who aren’t on board with the bloodbath in Ukraine? What’s the solution?
It was sad to watch, frankly.
The task of defending the administration’s record and presenting an alternative vision proved too much for cackling Kamala
I haven’t seen it as of yet, but here’s thinking the Democrat cheerleader establishment media will commend Kamala for her “poise” and “composure” on Tuesday night as though the woman’s ability to stand upright for a couple hours and speak for fifty percent of a one-on-one hour-and-a-half debate program qualifies her to be president. Trump has already done more than a half dozen of these – including June 27’s event which was probably more noteworthy for fixating on senile Joe Biden’s blank stares and fits of anger than anything else.
Compared with senile Joe, cackling Kamala didn’t have a high bar to clear. It used to be said, in the old days, that a student would receive 400 points on the SAT simply by signing his name, and that’s about how it felt watching Harris and Trump appear on the same stage together. Kamala would’ve been given a certain amount of credit just for showing in a setting that couldn’t completely be controlled.
Once the buildup was over and the discussion started, however, and Kamala actually had to say something substantive, her usual limitations – namely her ability to piece together coherent thoughts – began revealing themselves. And it probably shouldn’t be discounted how much it hurt Harris not to be able to look at Trump with her piercing bird-of-prey glare and admonish him to keep quiet, since “I’m speaking!” would’ve eaten up ten to fifteen seconds of any of her answers.
Throughout the evening, Kamala seemed caught between the need to defend Joe Biden’s record – and hers – and needing to be seen as a departure from the old ways and offering voters something new. Trump was quite effective at painting Kamala’s potential presidency as a bridge between the two, and, again, the muted microphone helped him maintain the type of self-discipline he couldn’t always count on in times past.
But then the “moderators” got in the way. Again. At one point, near the end of the debate, she said, “I’m not Joe Biden”. Where was the follow-up on that one, David (Muir)? How would you pay for all your program ideas, Kamala? Wouldn’t that make inflation worse? What about your plethora of past statements about banning fracking? Did your “principles” change on those, too?
Trump attempted some fact checking of his own, not that he’ll be given credit for it by his enemies (which included the Liz Cheneys and Mitt Romneys of the world in addition to every Democrat outside of RFK Jr., Tulsi Gabbard and a couple of the pollsters who regularly appear on Fox News).
Trump has mentioned many times that he doesn’t over prepare for debates, and his comfortability with answering non-scripted impromptu questions shows up on occasions like Tuesday night. But still he was knocked off his game plan by his usual self-defensive bugaboos – the 2020 election and abortion, among several others. Perhaps it was his awful debate performance in September from four years ago that should’ve taught him a valuable lesson. But at any rate, Trump – or the microphones – weren’t about to allow him to make his case.
Trump isn’t the greatest pure debater ever. He’s no Abraham Lincoln, put it that way. But his lack of practice in debate class probably works to his advantage in 2024’s political debates, when given the opportunity to talk without being fact-checked as he’s speaking. There aren’t a lot of rules in this format. He can say whatever he wants, but he’s not going to receive a failing letter grade if he messes up.
Kamala, on the other hand, appeared well-prepared and well-rehearsed. Her supporters like it when her “vibe” is in full effect, allowing her to change accents and make points like a politician would. She’s legally trained – obviously – but she comes across as too formal at times and robotic at others.
The “I was that little girl” moment was back from the Democrat primaries. She looked right at Trump when speaking and employed her condescending tone of voice, like she’s shaming Trump for his pro-America first positions.
She quickly discovered that defending the Biden/Harris record wasn’t as straightforward or easy as she would’ve figured. As expected, she acknowledged that people were struggling with prices and didn’t take responsibility for it.
But it didn’t seem to matter for much of the night. Trump’s best answer of the evening was probably his closing statement. “She’s had three and a half years to make real change. Why didn’t she do it?” Trump also challenged her to go back to Washington, wake Joe Biden up and close the border, right then and there.
Unfortunately, there wasn’t quite enough of the simplicity of that message on Tuesday night.
It was fitting that the event took place in Philadelphia – Trump must’ve felt like Rocky getting beat on relentlessly by Apollo Creed.
Fallout from the debate will rain for a few days
Where do we go from here? There’s little doubt that much of the political world was looking to this debate to provide substance that Kamala’s airy campaign had thus far lacked, and although she was forced to have to say something on Tuesday night, it’s always hard to determine winners based on the answers given.
The low information portion of the American voting public doesn’t need substance. They will have loved Kamala’s “poised” performance. That’s good enough for them. That and the moderators’ tag-teaming Trump.
Donald Trump has been so thoroughly vetted that there just isn’t any more Alicia Machados out there to pull a surprise reveal on the public. From here on out, Kamala Harris will likely face some pressure to add another debate to the calendar, especially if her polls continue to trend as they have been recently. The establishment media will go out of their way to claim Kamala “won” the forum simply for not completely folding.
But Trump, by and large, won on the content of what he said, even if it wasn’t always artfully presented. Will it sway the undecided voters who tuned in Tuesday night? The stalemate will continue. Eventually, Kamala will have to put up something worthwhile. Just don’t count on ABC to make her do it.
Joe Biden economy
inflation
Biden cognitive decline
gas prices,
Nancy Pelosi
Biden senile
Kamala Harris candidacy
Donald Trump campaign
Harris Trump debates
J.D. Vance
Kamala vice president
Speaker Mike Johnson
Donald Trump assassination
2022 elections
Donald Trump
2024 presidential election
Tim Walz
The "debate" left me depressed. Kamala was light on content, but she handled herself well like an actress who has memorized her lines. She looked good and undoubtedly made a good impression on low information voters who are swayed by feelings and outward appearances. But in restropect after a somewhat restless night of sleep, and reviewing what others have to say, It's clear that neither candidate "won" and the viewers were poorly served. You are right that the only winners were the moderators and ABC. But they get a D- at best for their sorry performances.